Breaking: We Transmitted National Assembly Election Results Successfully, But Presidential Failed

An ad-hoc staff of INEC who served as a Presiding Officer in the February 25, 2023 presidential election has testified that the presidential election results “refused” to be transmitted with the BVAS technology.

The witness who was subpoenaed to appear by the PDP and Atiku Abubakar in the ongoing trial of their petition against INEC’s conduct of the presidential election added that he was able to successfully transmit the results of the Senatorial and House of Representatives election which held same day

Identified by the initial EOF, a copy of his appointment letter as INEC presiding officer for Polling Unit 017, Ward 3 in Abia North Local Government Area was tendered before the court and admitted as an exhibit. The witness in his testimony repeatedly stated that he, along with others, were trained on how to transmit results.

  • He claims that after sorting and tallying the votes, he properly recorded them on form EC8A, which was then signed by party officials and the police, and he took a picture of it. However, he claims that he was unable to send the form using the BVAS and had to personally carry it to the ward collation center.
  • He acknowledged during cross-examination by the INEC counsel that he had received training on offline transmission as well, which involved uploading the image of the result sheet even in the absence of a network. He added that, thanks to the training they received, the procedure would be finished automatically when there was network in the BVAS device.

The witness acknowledged during cross-examination by attorneys representing Bola Tinubu and the APC that there was no problem in his voting unit and that he was pleased with the election because police were on hand to keep them safe.

Responding to further questioning, the witness also confirmed that the Labour Party won the election in his polling unit.

The testimony of the subpoenaed witness was earlier delayed after the respondents raised objections on ground that their statements were not front-loaded, leading to a heated argument between the petitioner’s counsel and the respondents counsel.

In resolving the issue, the Justices decided to reserve the ruling till the final judgment, instead of deciding it immediately as earlier planned.

Drop a Comment

Please Do not post any Spam link on the comment Box

Previous Post Next Post